Percutaneous Coronary Interventions with Sirolimus-Eluting Alex Plus Stents in Patients with or without Diabetes: 4-Year Results
1
Department of Invasive Cardiology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-813 Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Cardiology and Internal Medicine, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 11-041 Olsztyn, Poland
3
Department of Cardiology, Regional Specialist Hospital in Olsztyn, 10-561 Olsztyn, Poland
4
Department of Cardiology, State Medical Institute of the Ministry of Interior and Administration, 02-507 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2024, 11(6), 160; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11060160
Submission received: 27 March 2024
/
Revised: 3 May 2024
/
Accepted: 20 May 2024
/
Published: 22 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Myocardial Infarction: Prevention, Treatment and Outcomes)
Abstract
:We characterized the performance, as well as the safety, of a second-generation thin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer, Alex Plus (Balton, Poland), implanted in patients with type 2 diabetes (DM) with a 4-year follow-up. We defined the primary endpoint as the 48-month rate of major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were all-cause death, cardiac death, MI, and TLR rates at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months. We enrolled 232 patients in whom 282 stents were implanted, including 97 DM and 135 non-DM patients. The mean age of the DM patients was 69.5 ± 10.1 years and females accounted for 30% of the patients. DM patients had higher rates of arterial hypertension (97% vs. 88%, p = 0.016), dyslipidemia (86% vs. 70%, p = 0.005), prior MI (61% vs. 40%, p = 0.002), prior PCI (65% vs. 50%, p = 0.020), and prior CABG (14% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.029). We recorded statistically significant differences for MACE (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.01–3.41, p = 0.046), cardiac death (HR 4.46, 95% CI 1.44–13.8, p = 0.010), and MI (HR 3.17, 95% CI 1.10–9.12, p = 0.033), but not for TLR, between DM and non-DM patients in terms of the analyzed endpoints at 4 years. Our study showed that Alex Plus was efficient and safe in a contemporary cohort of real-world DM patients undergoing percutaneous revascularization.
1. Introduction
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) presents unique challenges and considerations due to the heightened cardiovascular risk associated with this condition. Diabetes is a significant risk factor for the development and progression of coronary artery disease (CAD), leading to an increased prevalence of complex lesions and a higher likelihood of adverse cardiovascular events. Therefore, managing CAD in DM patients often necessitates more aggressive treatment strategies, including PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) [1,2].
One of the key concerns regarding PCI for DM patients is the increased risk of restenosis and stent thrombosis compared to non-DM patients [3]. This heightened risk is attributed to factors such as endothelial dysfunction, accelerated atherosclerosis, and impaired vascular healing processes observed in diabetic patients [4,5]. To mitigate these risks, meticulous attention is paid to the selection of stent types, antiplatelet therapy, and procedural techniques. Drug-eluting stents (DES) are preferred over bare-metal stents (BMS) due to their superior efficacy in reducing restenosis rates [6,7,8]. Moreover, the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) may be extended in DM patients to minimize the risk of stent thrombosis, or more potent antiplatelet drugs might be used, such as ticagrelor [9].
Furthermore, managing DM patients undergoing PCI involves a multidisciplinary approach, with close collaboration between cardiologists, endocrinologists, and other healthcare providers [10]. Optimal glycemic control, along with aggressive management of other cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, plays a crucial role in improving outcomes post-PCI [6,11]. Additionally, careful patient selection, thorough pre-procedural evaluation, and personalized treatment plans are essential for optimizing PCI outcomes and reducing the risk of complications in DM patients with CAD [12]. Current guidelines recommend CABG for patients with diabetes; however, the diffuse atherosclerotic process in DM patients makes PCI a cornerstone of treatment for DM patients with CAD [13,14].
We characterized the performance and safety of PCI with a second-generation, thin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implanted in DM patients, with a 4-year follow-up.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Study Population
We retrospectively collected data from the hospital records. We considered all consecutive patients who were subject to PCI with the sirolimus-eluting coronary stent Alex Plus (Balton, Poland) between July 2015 and March 2016, as described previously [15,16].
We analyzed baseline demographics, clinical and laboratory data, and clinical outcomes at a 48-month follow-up between DM and non-DM patients.
2.2. Alex Plus Stent Characteristics
Alex Plus is a cobalt–chromium (L605) stent with 70 μm struts that releases sirolimus (1.3 μg/mm2) from a biodegradable polymer for eight weeks [17,18]. The Alex Plus stent is available in the following parameter ranges: diameter of 2.0–5.0 mm and length of 8.0–40.0 mm. The stent can be overexpanded during postdilatation even up to 6 mm (3.5 mm -> 4.3 mm; 4.0 mm -> 4.7 mm; 5.0 mm -> 6.0 mm).
2.3. Data Collection
We acquired information on the following comorbidities from hospital records: arterial hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, previous myocardial infarction (MI), prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), chronic kidney disease (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m2), history of CABG, peripheral artery disease, previous stroke, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Moreover, we analyzed procedure details, including lesion characteristics (A, B1, B2, C according to AHA/ACC classification [19]) and periprocedural adverse events. Additionally, SYNTAX (https://syntaxscore.org accessed on 24–25 March 2024), SYNTAX II [20], and EuroScore II (https://www.euroscore.org accessed on 19–20 March 2024) were calculated. We also analyzed laboratory results obtained at admission, including complete blood count with differential (WBC—white blood cells, RBC—red blood cells, Hgb—hemoglobin, PLT—platelets), glucose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), troponin T, kinase creatinine (CK), CK-MB, lipid profile, creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Finally, we summarized the medications prescribed at discharge [14].
Echocardiographic parameters (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, posterior wall diameter, intraventricular septal diameter, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, left atrial diameter) were measured with a commercially available diagnostic ultrasound device (iE 33, Philips Medical System, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Experienced cardiologists measured the values according to the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging guidelines [21].
2.4. Study Endpoints
The primary endpoint of our study was the occurrence rate of major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE) over 48 months, encompassing cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary endpoints included rates of all-cause death, cardiac death, MI, and TLR at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months.
2.5. Statistical Methods
Descriptive statistics are shown as mean values with standard deviation, minimum values, median values with interquartile range, and maximum values for continuous variables, and categorical variables are presented as counts and percentages. Pearson’s chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test were employed to compare categorical variables between two subgroups (DM vs. non-DM patients). Fisher’s exact test was used when at least one subgroup had a count of zero. Continuous variables between the two subgroups were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Propensity score matching with the nearest neighbor method was used to adjust for baseline differences. The validity of logistic regression was assessed using the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The model was well calibrated (χ2 = 4.33; p = 0.84). The propensity model yielded a concordance index 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–0.82).
We utilized Kaplan–Meier estimators with 95% CI to compare 48-month survival curves for different endpoints between two subgroups (DM vs. non-DM patients). In cases where a specific endpoint recurred within a patient during the 48-month follow-up, the survival time was recorded as the duration until the first occurrence of that event. It should be noted that when analyzing MACE—a composite endpoint—the survival time was defined as the period leading up to the occurrence of the first event among cardiac death, MI, or TLR.
We performed univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses, employing the Cox proportional hazards model, to evaluate disparities in survival rates among the groups. The multivariable Cox regression model was chosen using stepwise selection, applying a backward elimination algorithm with a significance threshold of 0.1. Subsequently, we reported the outcomes, including the Hazard Ratio (HR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for HR.
Statistical analyses were conducted using R software version 4.2.1 (23 June 2022 ucrt)—“Funny-Looking Kid” copyright 2022, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit) [14].
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Characteristics
In the reporting time frame, we retrieved data on 872 PCI procedures. For the final analysis, we included 232 patients with 282 Alex Plus stents implanted, as described previously in detail. In 4 subjects (5 stents), Alex Plus stents were not deployed (1 device failure—no possibility to deliver the stent to the target lesion due to calcification and tortuosity; 4 stents not implanted due to fatal cardiac arrest). Additionally, 14 subjects were excluded (20 stents) due to in-hospital death unrelated to the sirolimus-eluting stent deployment [15,16,22]. In the end, we identified 97 DM patients and 135 non-DM patients (Figure 1).
The mean age of the DM patients was 69.5 ± 10.1 years, and females accounted for 30% of the patients. The DM patients had higher rates of arterial hypertension (97% vs. 88%, p = 0.016), dyslipidemia (86% vs. 70%, p = 0.005), prior MI (61% vs. 40%, p = 0.002), prior PCI (65% vs. 50%, p = 0.020), and prior CABG (14% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.029). They were also characterized by higher values in echocardiographic parameters revealing left ventricular hypertrophy (Table 1). Patients with diabetes had higher HbA1c (7.9 ± 9.5% vs. 5.6 ± 1.6%, p < 0.001) and triglyceride (175.3 ± 85.7 mg% vs. 117.6 ± 67.5 mg%, p = 0.007) values as well as lower eGFR (66.6 ± 22.2 mL/min/1.73m2 vs. 73.4 ± 23.6 mL/min/1.73m2, p = 0.028) values (Table 2).
3.2. Procedure Characteristics
We observed no significant differences between DM and non-DM patients, except for treated coronary bifurcation incidence, which was higher in the DM subgroup (19.5% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.012). Most treated lesions were located in the right coronary artery (DM vs. non-DM: 40% vs. 37%, p = 0.812), followed by the left anterior descending artery (31.0% vs. 30%, p = 0.812) and the left circumflex artery (23% vs. 28%, p = 0.812). Lesions undergoing PCI were complex. Type C lesions were treated in 35% of the DM cases and 39% of the non-DM cases (p = 0.896). The mean SYNTAX score was numerically higher in DM patients (14.3 ± 8.5 vs. 13.6 ± 8.8, p = 0.441) (Table 3).
Lesion pre- (66% vs. 59%, p = 0.249) and postdilatations (35% vs. 40%, p = 0.444) were performed at similar rates. The mean nominal stent parameters did not differ significantly among subgroups. Device success was 100% in the non-DM group and 98.9% in the DM group (one stent failure case occurred due to massive calcification). Additional stents were implanted in 44% of DM patients and 35% of non-DM patients (p = 0.155). Coronary dissections were comparable among subgroups (6.2% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.717) (Table 3).
Table 4 provides the drugs administered at discharge. All patients received acetylsalicylic acid and P2Y12 inhibitors. Patients with DM more frequently received Ca-blockers, diuretics, and nitrates.
3.3. Long-Term Outcomes
The MACE, death, cardiac death, MI, and TLR rates at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months for the whole population were published previously [15]. At 48 months, for the DM patients, the incidences of MACE, death, cardiac death, MI, and TLR were 25.6%, 17.5%, 12.4%, 10.3%, and 12.4%, respectively (Table 5). The reasons for cardiac death were heart failure deterioration (n = 10), cardiogenic shock due to MI (n = 1), and sudden cardiac death (n = 1). No stent thrombosis cases were registered. In the whole population, there were statistically significant differences for MACE (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.01–3.41, p = 0.046), cardiac death (HR 4.46, 95% CI 1.44–13.8, p = 0.010), and MI (HR 3.17, 95% CI 1.10–9.12, p = 0.033) between DM and non-DM patients at 4 years (Supplementary Figure S1).
Additionally, in Supplementary Figure S2, we present data on all-cause death rates at 8 years. The overall mortality rate was 28% (n = 65), with a 39.2% (n = 38) mortality rate in the DM subgroup and 20.0% (n = 27) in the non-DM subgroup (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.40–3.81, p = 0.01).
3.4. 4-Year Outcomes in Propensity Score Matching
Propensity score matching yielded 69 well-matched pairs of patients with DM or without DM. Baseline clinical and procedural differences were balanced (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4).
At 48 months, in the DM patients, the incidences of MACE, death, cardiac death, MI, and TLR were 30.4%, 18.8%, 14.5%, 11.6%, and 14.5%, respectively (Table 6). No stent thrombosis cases were registered. In the propensity score-matched population, there were statistically significant differences for MACE (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.78–2.94, p = 0.02) and cardiac death (HR 3.13, 95% CI 1.05–9.32, p = 0.04) between DM and non-DM patients at 4 years (Figure 2).
3.5. Cox Analysis
Finally, we analyzed predictive factors for MACE and TLR in the DM subgroup at 48 months. The multivariable analysis results are depicted in Table 7 for MACE and Table 8 for TLR (univariable analyses are presented in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2).
In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, the statistically significant MACE predictors were postdilatation (HR 3.76, 95% CI 1.56–9.08, p = 0.003); EuroScore > 3 (HR 5.8, 95% CI 1.92–17.5, p = 0.002); arterial hypertension (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03–0.78, p = 0.023); and clopidogrel use (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09–0.93, p = 0.038), whereas the TLR predictors were postdilatation (HR 14.5, 95% CI 2.77–75.7, p = 0.002); EuroScore > 3 (HR 6.72, 95% CI 1.43–31.5, p = 0.016); cardiogenic shock (HR 42.2, 95% CI 2.21–80.5, p = 0.013); and clopidogrel use (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.71, p = 0.017).
4. Discussion
Our study demonstrated that Alex Plus stents were effective and safe for a modern group of real-world diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous revascularization. Using Alex Plus for PCI resulted in low rates of periprocedural complications and a high device success rate of nearly 99%. Predictably, diabetic patients experienced higher rates of MACE, cardiac death, and MI over a 4-year period. However, the TLR rates between diabetic and non-diabetic patients did not show a significant statistical difference at the 4-year follow-up.
Diabetes presents unique challenges in the management of coronary artery disease, necessitating tailored approaches to revascularization strategies. Drug-eluting stents (DES) have revolutionized the treatment landscape by significantly reducing restenosis rates and the need for repeat revascularization procedures [23,24,25]. Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have emerged as a prominent choice for diabetic patients due to their potent antiproliferative properties and favorable outcomes in inhibiting neointimal hyperplasia, a common complication in this population. Studies have consistently shown improved clinical outcomes with SES compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) and first-generation DES, making them a preferred option in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) [26,27,28].
One of the key advantages of sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients lies in their ability to mitigate the heightened risk of restenosis and adverse events associated with coronary interventions in this population [29]. Diabetes is characterized by systemic inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and increased proliferation of smooth muscle cells, all of which contribute to accelerated atherosclerosis and restenosis post-PCI [5,30,31]. Sirolimus, a potent immunosuppressant and antiproliferative agent, effectively inhibits smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration, thereby reducing the risk of restenosis. This property is particularly advantageous in diabetic patients, where restenosis rates tend to be higher compared to non-diabetic patients [1,3,32].
Despite the all-comer nature of this research, the incidence of periprocedural complications was low. One potential explanation might be the fact that transradial access was used in over 80% of the patients. Transradial access is acknowledged to be linked with a decreased risk of adverse events compared to femoral access, particularly in high-risk patients [33].
After 12 months, the cardiac death, TLR, MI, and MACE rates for the DM patients were 10.3%, 9.3%, 7.2%, and 17.5%, respectively. These rates increased at 48 months to 12.4%, 12.4%, 10.3%, and 25.6%, respectively. As can be seen, the highest incidence of events was observed in the first 12 months after the index procedure. In our study population, the MACE rate was mainly driven by cardiac death cases associated with heart failure exacerbation. The cardiac death rates in the non-DM patients were markedly lower—0.74% at 12 months, and 2.9% at 48 months. What is somewhat surprising is that the TLR rates were comparable between DM and non-DM patients [34,35]. These results are comparable to those reported in the literature.
Gasior et al. compared biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) [36]. At 12 months, they observed similar rates of target vessel revascularization (6.64% vs. 5.88%; p = 0.611), as well as similar safety outcomes: all-cause death (10.06% vs. 7.59%; p = 0.158), MI (7.959% vs. 6.83%; p = 0.813), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (1.14% vs. 0.76%; p = 0.525). Worth stressing is the fact that in our study, there were no cases of stent thrombosis.
Olsen et al. analyzed 5-year results of DM patients treated with either zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) or SES [37]. In these DM patients, the MACE rate was higher in patients treated with ZES than those treated with SES (28.4% vs. 18.5%; p = 0.032) due to an increased rate of target vessel revascularization (TVR, 18.9% vs. 8.3%; p = 0.006). Among non-DM patients, ZES and SES characterized similar MACE rates at 5 years; however, SES were linked with a significantly increased risk of definite stent thrombosis (1.0% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.028).
Conversely, Iglesis et al. showed that the 5-year rates of cardiac death (12.3% vs. 6.8%; p < 0.01), target vessel MI (11.2% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.01), and clinically-driven TLR (16.4% vs. 8.6%; p < 0.01) were significantly higher in DM patients than in non-DM individuals [38].
Here, it is also worth referencing the paper by Koch et al., in which 10-year follow-up data are presented [39]. This study involved a total of 3002 participants who were randomly allocated to receive either polymer-free (PF)-SES (n = 2002) or durable polymer (DP)-ZES (n = 1000). The DM prevalence was notably high and comparable between the groups, with 575 patients (28.7%) in the PF-SES group and 295 patients (29.5%) in the DP-ZES group (p = 0.66). Over a span of 10 years, the survival rates were 53.5% for the DM patients and 68.5% for the non-DM patients. In terms of MACE, PF-SES demonstrated similar rates as DP-ZES in DM patients (74.8% vs. 79.6%; p = 0.08) as well as in non-DM patients (62.5% vs. 62.2%; p = 0.88).
In our study, 19.5% of PCI cases were performed within coronary bifurcations in DM patients. In the BIFURCAT registry, DM patients (compared to non-DM patients) undergoing PCI within coronary bifurcations are characterized by worse outcomes (a median follow-up of 21 months) due to increased rates of MACE (17% vs. 9%, p < 0.01), all-cause mortality (9% vs. 4%, p < 0.01), TLR (5% vs. 3%, p < 0.01), and stent thrombosis (2% vs. 1%, p < 0.01) [40].
Finally, we identified predicting factors of MACE and TLR. They are well known, and include higher EuroScores and cardiogenic shock. Nevertheless, postdilatation (destructive) and arterial hypertension (protective) had a strikingly high impact. The reason for this is unclear. One might speculate that patients with arterial hypertension were under strict surveillance, with better risk factor control. Also, clopidogrel use seemed to protect against MACE, but one can presume that ticagrelor or prasugrel were preferentially given to patients with more complex lesions. Nonetheless, overly aggressive postdilatation could potentially lead to higher rates of vessel injury, coronary dissection, and neointima response, which, in consequence, could cause ischemic events in the future. In this context, one study showed that the stent’s diameter and length did not impact the outcomes of DM patients [41].
Study Limitations
This research possesses inherent constraints typical of observational studies, wherein treatment selection relied on the operator’s discretion. The lack of randomization might introduce selection bias, although consecutive patient enrollment somewhat mitigated this concern. Moreover, the relatively modest size of the study cohort and challenges in gathering follow-up information might have influenced the outcomes. Furthermore, the absence of a formal sample size calculation could have impacted the results. To partially correct this, a propensity score matching analysis was performed. Finally, the low rate of intravascular imaging could also negatively impact the results.
5. Conclusions
Our study showed that Alex Plus stents were efficient and safe in a contemporary cohort of real-world DM patients undergoing percutaneous revascularization. PCI with Alex Plus was associated with low periprocedural complication rates and high device success (almost 99%). As could be predicted, the rates of MACE, cardiac death, and MI were higher in DM patients at 4 years. However, the TLR rates did not significantly differ statistically between DM and non-DM patients at the 4-year follow-up.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://mdpi.longhoe.net/article/10.3390/jcdd11060160/s1, Supplementary Table S1: Univariable Cox regression for MACE; Supplementary Table S2: Univariable Cox regression for TLR; Supplementary Figure S1: Kaplan–Meier curves disclosing event-free survival in DM and non-DM subgroups in the whole population. Supplementary Figure S2: Kaplan–Meier curves disclosing event-free survival in DM and non-DM subgroups in the whole population at 8 years.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.T. and J.B; methodology, M.T. and J.B.; investigation, K.B., M.T. and A.K.; data curation, J.B. and R.J.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T. and J.B.; writing—review and editing, M.T.; supervision, R.J.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Independent Ethics Committee of the Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of Interior and Administration in Warsaw (no. 64/2020, 22 April 2020).
Informed Consent Statement
Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.
Data Availability Statement
Data are available from the corresponding author on request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Ma, J.; Wang, M.; Wu, P.; Ma, X.; Chen, D.; Jia, S.; Yan, N. Predictive effect of triglyceride-glucose index on No-Reflow Phenomenon in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Diabetol. Metab. Syndr. 2024, 16, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marx, N.; Federici, M.; Schutt, K.; Muller-Wieland, D.; Ajjan, R.A.; Antunes, M.J.; Christodorescu, R.M.; Crawford, C.; Di Angelantonio, E.; Eliasson, B.; et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. Eur. Heart J. 2023, 44, 4043–4140. [Google Scholar]
- Tanner, R.; Farhan, S.; Giustino, G.; Sartori, S.; Feng, Y.; Hooda, A.; Vinayak, M.; Dangas, G.; Mehran, R.; Kini, A.S.; et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on clinical outcomes after first episode in-stent restenosis PCI: Results from a large registry. Int. J. Cardiol. 2024, 401, 131856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rao, C.; Zhong, Q.; Wu, R.; Li, Z.; Duan, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, C.; Chen, X.; Wang, R.; He, K. Impact of body mass index on long-term outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention stratified by diabetes mellitus: A retrospective cohort study. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 2024, 24, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bian, X.; He, J.; Zhang, R.; Yuan, S.; Dou, K. The Combined Effect of Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus on the Prognosis of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Large-Scale Cohort Study. J. Inflamm. Res. 2023, 16, 6415–6429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caiazzo, G.; Oliva, A.; Testa, L.; Heang, T.M.; Lee, C.Y.; Milazzo, D.; Stefanini, G.; Pesenti, N.; Mangieri, A.; Colombo, A.; et al. Sirolimus-coated balloon in all-comer population of coronary artery disease patients: The EASTBOURNE DIABETES prospective registry. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2024, 23, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maurina, M.; Chiarito, M.; Leone, P.P.; Testa, L.; Montorfano, M.; Reimers, B.; Esposito, G.; Monti, F.; Ferrario, M.; Latib, A.; et al. Randomized clinical trial of abluminus DES+ sirolimus-eluting stent versus everolimus-eluting DES for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes mellitus: An optical coherence tomography study. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2023, 102, 1020–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, H.; Kang, D.Y.; Ahn, J.M.; Lee, J.; Choi, Y.; Hur, S.H.; Park, H.J.; Tresukosol, D.; Kang, W.C.; Kwon, H.M.; et al. Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Disease in Diabetics: The BEST Extended Follow-Up Study. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2023, 16, 2412–2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ning, C.; Ling, F.; Liu, D.; Zhi, Z. Ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 2024, 24, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, F.R.; Nawaz, T.; Sajjad, W.; Hussain, S.; Amin, M.; Ali, H. Evaluating the Differential Risk of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy Among Diabetic and Non-diabetic Patients Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Cureus 2024, 16, e53493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, S.; Wang, Y.; Pang, S.; Wu, X. Combination of the glycated hemoglobin levels and prognostic nutritional index as a prognostic marker in patients with acute coronary syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Lipids Health Dis. 2024, 23, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kultursay, B.; Yilmaz, C.; Guven, B.; Mutlu, D.; Karagoz, A. Potential renoprotective effect of SGLT2 inhibitors against contrast-induced AKI in diabetic STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Kardiol. Pol. 2024, 82, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gaba, P.; Sabik, J.F.; Murphy, S.A.; Bellavia, A.; O’Gara, P.T.; Smith, P.K.; Serruys, P.W.; Kappetein, A.P.; Park, S.J.; Park, D.W.; et al. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with Left Main Disease with or without Diabetes: Findings From a Pooled Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials. Circulation 2024, 149, 1328–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Byrne, R.A.; Rossello, X.; Coughlan, J.J.; Barbato, E.; Berry, C.; Chieffo, A.; Claeys, M.J.; Dan, G.A.; Dweck, M.R.; Galbraith, M.; et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. Eur. Heart J. 2023, 44, 3720–3826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tyczyński, M.; Kern, A.; Buller, P.; Wańha, W.; Gil, R.J.; Bil, J. Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Complex, High-Risk Indicated Procedure (CHIP) and High-Bleeding-Risk (HBR) Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: 4-Year Results. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 5313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tyczynski, M.; Kern, A.; Buller, P.; Gil, R.J.; Bil, J. 48-Month Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in an All-Comers Population with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Chronic Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent. J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buszman, P.P.; Michalak, M.J.; Pruski, M.; Fernandez, C.; Jelonek, M.; Janas, A.; Savard, C.; Gwiazdowska-Nowotka, B.; Zurakowski, A.; Wojakowski, W.; et al. Comparable vascular response of a new generation sirolimus eluting stents when compared to fluoropolymer everolimus eluting stents in the porcine coronary restenosis model. Cardiol. J. 2016, 23, 657–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobrolinska, M.; Gasior, P.; Roleder, T.; Roleder-Dylewska, M.; Smolka, G.; Ochala, A.; Kedhi, E.; Wojakowski, W. Short-term healing response after implantation of the thin-strut, fast-releasing sirolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated Alex Plus stent: Optical coherence tomography study. Postepy Kardiol. Interwencyjnej 2020, 16, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ryan, T.J.; Faxon, D.P.; Gunnar, R.M.; Kennedy, J.W.; King, S.B., 3rd; Loop, F.D.; Peterson, K.L.; Reeves, T.J.; Williams, D.O.; Winters, W.L., Jr.; et al. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). Circulation 1988, 78, 486–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farooq, V.; van Klaveren, D.; Steyerberg, E.W.; Meliga, E.; Vergouwe, Y.; Chieffo, A.; Kappetein, A.P.; Colombo, A.; Holmes, D.R., Jr.; Mack, M.; et al. Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: Development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet 2013, 381, 639–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lancellotti, P.; Zamorano, J.; Habib, G.; Badano, L. The EACVI Textbook of Echocardiography; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Tyczyński, M.; Kern, A.; Buller, P.; Gil, R.; Bil, J. The Impact of Complete Blood Count-Derived Indices (RDW, PDW and NLR) on 4 Years Outcomes in Patients after PCI with Sirolimus-Eluting Stent, including Complex High-Risk Index Procedure (CHIP) Patients. Med. Res. J. 2023, 9, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, H.; Espirito-Santo, M.; Bispo, J.; Guedes, J.; Mimoso, J.; Palmeiro, H.; Baptista Goncalves, R.; Vinhas, H. Clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in chronic total occlusion in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Rev. Port. Cardiol. 2023, 43, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Hyun, J.; Lee, J.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, J.B.; Kang, D.Y.; Lee, P.H.; Ahn, J.M.; Park, D.W.; Park, S.J.; et al. Effectiveness and Safety of Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus. JACC Asia 2021, 1, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tarantini, G.; Cardaioli, F.; De Iaco, G.; Tuccillo, B.; De Angelis, M.C.; Mauro, C.; Boccalatte, M.; Trivisonno, A.; Ribichini, F.; Vadala, G.; et al. A more-Comers populAtion trEated with an ultrathin struts polimer-free Sirolimus stent: An Italian post-maRketing study (the CAESAR registry). Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2023, 10, 1326091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rozemeijer, R.; Benedetto, D.; Kraaijeveld, A.O.; Voskuil, M.; Stein, M.; Timmers, L.; Rittersma, S.Z.; Agostoni, P.; Doevendans, P.A.; Stella, P.R. Clinical outcomes of complex real-world diabetic patients treated with amphilimus sirolimus-eluting stents or zotarolimus-eluting stents: A single-center registry. Cardiovasc. Revasc Med. 2018, 19, 521–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krackhardt, F.; Waliszewski, M.; Rischner, J.; Piot, C.; Pansieri, M.; Ruiz-Poveda, F.L.; Boxberger, M.; Noutsias, M.; Rios, X.F.; Kherad, B. Nine-month clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes treated with polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents and 6-month vs. 12-month dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Herz 2019, 44, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, K.N.; Maeng, M.; Raungaard, B.; Engstrom, T.; Veien, K.T.; Kristensen, S.D.; Ellert-Gregersen, J.; Jensen, S.E.; Junker, A.; Kahlert, J.; et al. Impact of diabetes on 1-year clinical outcome in patients undergoing revascularization with the BioFreedom stents or the Orsiro stents from the SORT OUT IX trial. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2022, 99, 1095–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babu Pothineni, R.; Ajmera, P.; Chawla, K.K.; Mantravadi, S.S.; Pathak, A.; Inamdar, M.K.; Jariwala, P.V.; Vijan, V.; Vijan, V.; Potdar, A. Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer-Coated Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: Patient-Level Pooled Analysis From Two Indian Registries. Cureus 2023, 15, e41743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Su, H.; Cao, Y.; Chen, Q.; Ye, T.; Cui, C.; Chen, X.; Yang, S.; Qi, L.; Long, Y.; **ong, S.; et al. The association between fibrinogen levels and severity of coronary artery disease and long-term prognosis following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Front. Endocrinol. 2023, 14, 1287855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, C.; Liu, T.; Wei, H.; Li, J. Serum oxidative stress factors predict myocardial ischemia reperfusion injury after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Postepy Kardiol. Interwencyjnej 2023, 19, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hemetsberger, R.; Mankerious, N.; Toelg, R.; Abdelghani, M.; Farhan, S.; Garcia-Garica, H.M.; Allali, A.; Windecker, S.; Lefevre, T.; Saito, S.; et al. Patients with higher-atherothrombotic risk vs. lower-atherothrombotic risk undergoing coronary intervention with newer-generation drug-eluting stents: An analysis from the randomized BIOFLOW trials. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2023, 112, 1278–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jolly, S.S.; Yusuf, S.; Cairns, J.; Niemela, K.; Xavier, D.; Widimsky, P.; Budaj, A.; Niemela, M.; Valentin, V.; Lewis, B.S.; et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): A randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 2011, 377, 1409–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Waltenberger, J.; Brachmann, J.; van der Heyden, J.; Richardt, G.; Frobert, O.; Seige, M.; Friedrich, G.; Erglis, A.; Winkens, M.; Hegeler-Molkewehrum, C.; et al. Five-Year Results of the Bioflow-III Registry: Real-World Experience with a Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent. Cardiovasc. Revasc Med. 2020, 21, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Zu, Q.; Tang, H.; Lu, M.; Chen, R.; Yang, Z. Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents in patients with diabetes versus non-diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2023, 22, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gasior, P.; Gierlotka, M.; Szczurek-Katanski, K.; Osuch, M.; Roleder, M.; Hawranek, M.; Wojakowski, W.; Polonski, L. Biodegradable polymer-coated thin strut sirolimus- -eluting stent versus durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in the diabetic population. Cardiol. J. 2021, 28, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olesen, K.K.; Tilsted, H.H.; Jensen, L.O.; Kaltoft, A.; Krusell, L.R.; Ravkilde, J.; Christiansen, E.H.; Madsen, M.; Thayssen, P.; Sorensen, H.T.; et al. Long-term outcome of sirolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (a Danish organization for randomized trials on clinical outcome III substudy). Am. J. Cardiol. 2015, 115, 298–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iglesias, J.F.; Heg, D.; Roffi, M.; Tuller, D.; Lanz, J.; Rigamonti, F.; Muller, O.; Moarof, I.; Cook, S.; Weilenmann, D.; et al. Five-Year Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Treated With Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2019, 8, e013607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koch, T.; Lenz, T.; Joner, M.; Xhepa, E.; Koppara, T.; Wiebe, J.; Coughlan, J.J.; Aytekin, A.; Ibrahim, T.; Kessler, T.; et al. Ten-year clinical outcomes of polymer-free versus durable polymer new-generation drug-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease with and without diabetes mellitus: Results of the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST 5) trial. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2021, 110, 1586–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bruno, F.; Kang, J.; Elia, E.; Han, J.K.; De Filippo, O.; Yang, H.M.; Gallone, G.; Park, K.W.; De Luca, L.; Kang, H.J.; et al. Impact of diabetes on long-term outcomes of bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention. An analysis from the BIFURCAT registry. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2023, 102, 620–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zibaeenezhad, M.J.; Sayadi, M.; Mohammadi, S.S.; Khorshidi, S.; Hadiyan, E.; Rasouli, N.; Karimi-Akhormeh, A.; Razeghian-Jahromi, I. The Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Clinical Outcomes after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Different Stent Sizes. J. Tehran Heart Cent. 2022, 17, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
The study flow chart.
Figure 2.
Kaplan–Meier curves disclosing event-free survival in DM and non-DM subgroups in propensity score-matched population. DM—diabetes; MACE—major adverse cardiovascular events.
Figure 2.
Kaplan–Meier curves disclosing event-free survival in DM and non-DM subgroups in propensity score-matched population. DM—diabetes; MACE—major adverse cardiovascular events.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics.
| Unmatched Population | Propensity Score-Matched Population | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Total Population n = 232 (%) | DM n = 97 (%) | Non-DM n = 135 (%) | p | DM n = 69 (%) | Non-DM n = 69 (%) | p |
| Sex: female | 64 (27.6) | 29 (30) | 35 (26) | 0.504 | 19 (27.5) | 18 (26.1) | 1.0 |
| Age [years] | 68 ± 11 | 69.5 ± 10.1 | 66.7 ± 11.3 | 0.071 | 67.4 ± 9.8 | 66.9 ± 8.9 | 0.75 |
| Acute coronary syndrome type at presentation | |||||||
| Unstable angina | 30 (12.9) | 13 (13) | 17 (13) | 0.357 | 7 (10.1) | 7 (10.1) | 0.78 |
| Non-ST elevation MI | 26 (11.2) | 10 (10) | 16 (12) | 6 (8.7) | 7 (10.1) | ||
| ST elevation MI | 32 (13.8) | 10 (10) | 23 (17) | 6 (8.7) | 8 (11.6) | ||
| Cardiogenic shock | 6 (2.6) | 2 (2.1) | 4 (3.0) | >0.999 | 2 (3.3) | 2 (3.3) | 1.0 |
| Arterial hypertension | 213 (91.8) | 94 (97) | 119 (88) | 0.016 | 68 (98.6) | 66 (95.7) | 0.62 |
| Dyslipidemia | 177 (76.3) | 83 (86) | 94 (70) | 0.005 | 55 (79.7) | 54 (78.3) | 1.0 |
| Prior myocardial infarction | 113 (48.7) | 59 (61) | 54 (40) | 0.002 | 39 (56.5) | 41 (59.4) | 0.86 |
| Prior PCI | 130 (56.0) | 63 (65) | 67 (50) | 0.020 | 42 (60.1) | 38 (55.1) | 0.61 |
| Prior CABG | 22 (9.5) | 14 (14) | 8 (5.9) | 0.029 | 9 (13.0) | 7 (10.1) | 0.79 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 42 (18.1) | 21 (22) | 21 (16) | 0.234 | 12 (7.2) | 11 (15.9) | 1.0 |
| Prior stroke | 17 (7.3) | 8 (8.2) | 9 (6.7) | 0.649 | 7 (10.1) | 7 (10.1) | 1.0 |
| Peripheral artery disease | 25 (10.8) | 9 (9.3) | 16 (12) | 0.533 | 7 (10.1) | 8 (11.6) | 1.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 13 (5.6) | 8 (8.2) | 5 (3.7) | 0.138 | 4 (5.8) | 3 (4.3) | 1.0 |
| Echocardiographic parameters | |||||||
| Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter [mm] | 50.4 ± 9.0 | 51.1 ± 6.9 | 49.9 ± 10.1 | 0.507 | 51.0 ± 5.4 | 50.4 ± 13.2 | 0.73 |
| Intraventricular septal diameter [mm] | 11.4 ± 2.1 | 11.9 ± 2.1 | 11.1 ± 2.1 | 0.017 | 11.5 ± 4.1 | 11.2 ± 3.2 | 0.63 |
| Posterior wall diastolic diameter [mm] | 10.5 ± 1.6 | 10.7 ± 1.5 | 10.3 ± 1.7 | 0.043 | 10.5 ± 1.9 | 10.3 ± 2.1 | 0.59 |
| Left atrium [mm] | 40.4 ± 5.9 | 41.6 ± 6.2 | 39.6 ± 5.5 | 0.043 | 41.0 ± 4.1 | 39.9 ± 7.2 | 0.27 |
| TAPSE [mm] | 22.0 ± 4.3 | 21.8 ± 4.6 | 22.1 ± 4.2 | 0.421 | 21.9 ± 4.9 | 22.2 ± 3.5 | 0.68 |
| LVEF [%] | 49.5 ± 10.5 | 49.0 ± 9.9 | 49.8 ± 11.0 | 0.366 | 49.0 ± 9.9 | 49.8 ± 11.0 | 0.65 |
| Severe mitral insufficiency | 6 (3.1) | 1 (1.3) | 5 (4.4) | 0.404 | 1 (1.4) | 2 (3.3) | 1.0 |
| Severe aortic insufficiency | 1 (0.5) | 1 (1.3) | 0 (0) | 0.412 | 0 | 0 | 1.0 |
| Severe aortic stenosis | 4 (2.1) | 3 (3.8) | 1 (0.9) | 0.308 | 0 | 0 | 1.0 |
DM—type 2 diabetes; MI—myocardial infarction; CABG—coronary artery bypass grafting; LVEF—left ventricular ejection fraction; PCI—percutaneous coronary intervention; TAPSE—tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion.
Table 2.
Laboratory results.
| Unmatched Population | Propensity Score-Matched Population | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Total Population n = 232 | DM n = 97 | Non-DM n = 135 | p | DM n = 69 | Non-DM n = 69 | p |
| White blood cells [109/L] | 8.5 ± 2.7 | 8.5 ± 2.7 | 8.6 ± 2.7 | 0.67 | 8.5 ± 1.9 | 8.5 ± 2.1 | 1.0 |
| Hemoglobin [g/dL] | 13.4 ± 1.7 | 13.1 ± 1.8 | 13.6 ± 1.5 | 0.09 | 13.1 ± 1.5 | 13.4 ± 2.2 | 0.35 |
| Red blood cells [1012/L] | 4.4 ± 0.5 | 4.4 ± 0.6 | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 0.27 | 4.4 ± 0.5 | 4.5 ± 0.4 | 0.19 |
| Platelets [109/L] | 222.9 ± 65 | 225.1 ± 61.6 | 221.3 ± 67.6 | 0.20 | 224.4 ± 54.3 | 229.1 ± 61.7 | 0.64 |
| Glucose [mg/dL] | 136.4 ± 64.9 | 170.8 ± 75.0 | 110.7 ± 40.5 | <0.001 | 145.1 ± 90.4 | 124.1 ± 59.3 | 0.11 |
| HbA1c [%] | 6.3 (6.0–7.3) | 7.9 ± 9.5 | 5.6 ± 1.6 | <0.001 | 7.5 ± 4.5 | 5.9 ± 2.6 | 0.01 |
| Total cholesterol [mg/dL] | 163.9 ± 50.9 | 161.5 ± 60.6 | 165.7 ± 42.5 | 0.24 | 163.8 ± 43.5 | 161.9 ± 55.2 | 0.82 |
| HDL [mg/dL] | 45.7 ± 14.6 | 43.1 ± 12.1 | 47.6 ± 16.0 | 0.09 | 42.1 ± 9.1 | 45.5 ± 15.5 | 0.12 |
| LDL [mg/dL] | 89.8 ± 40.5 | 93.2 ± 39.5 | 85.3 ± 41.6 | 0.21 | 87.2 ± 44.2 | 89.2 ± 55.2 | 0.81 |
| Triglycerides [mg/dL] | 142 ± 33.9 | 175.3 ± 85.7 | 117.6 ± 67.5 | 0.01 | 154.8 ± 90.4 | 135.9 ± 70.9 | 0.17 |
| Creatine [mg/dL] | 1.1 ± 0.7 | 1.2 ± 0.8 | 1.1 ± 0.6 | 0.12 | 1.2 ± 0.6 | 1.1 ± 0.7 | 0.37 |
| eGFR [mL/min/1.73 m2] | 70.5 ± 23.2 | 66.6 ± 22.2 | 73.4 ± 23.6 | 0.03 | 68.9 ± 32.1 | 71.9 ± 13.9 | 0.48 |
Results presented as mean ± standard deviation; HDL—high-density lipoprotein; LDL—low-density lipoprotein.
Table 3.
Periprocedural characteristics.
| Unmatched Population | Propensity Score-Matched Population | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Total Population n = 232 (%) | DM n = 97 (%) | Non-DM n = 135 (%) | p | DM n = 69 (%) | Non-DM n = 69 (%) | p |
| Coronary artery with the target lesion | |||||||
| LM | 9 (3.9) | 4 (4.1) | 5 (3.7) | 0.81 | 3 (4.3) | 3 (4.3) | 1.0 |
| LAD | 70 (30) | 30 (31) | 40 (30) | 25 (36.2) | 29 (42.0) | ||
| LCx | 60 (25.9) | 22 (23) | 38 (28) | 17 (24.6) | 18 (26.1) | ||
| RCA | 89 (38.4) | 39 (40) | 50 (37) | 24 (34.8) | 19 (27.5) | ||
| VG | 5 (2.2) | 3 (3.1) | 2 (1.5) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Type of target lesion | |||||||
| A | 43 (18.5) | 19 (20) | 24 (18) | 0.89 | 14 (20.3) | 18 (26.1) | 0.28 |
| B1 | 65 (28.0) | 29 (30) | 36 (27) | 19 (27.5) | 19 (27.5) | ||
| B2 | 37 (15.9) | 15 (15) | 22 (16) | 10 (14.5) | 12 (17.4) | ||
| C | 87 (37.5) | 34 (35) | 53 (39) | 26 (37.7) | 19 (27.5) | ||
| Heavy calcification | 18 (7.8) | 11 (11) | 7 (5.2) | 0.08 | 6 (8.7) | 5 (7.2) | 1.0 |
| Coronary bifurcation | 23 (9.9) | 19 (19.5) | 4 (2.9) | 0.01 | 8 (11.6) | 4 (5.8) | 0.37 |
| SYNTAX | 13.9 ± 8.7 | 14.3 ± 8.5 | 13.6 ± 8.8 | 0.44 | 14.1 ± 8.8 | 13.7 ± 7.2 | 0.40 |
| SYNTAX II PCI | 32.9 ± 11.0 | 33.7 ± 10.5 | 32.4 ± 11.3 | 0.31 | 33.2 ± 10.9 | 32.5 ± 10.4 | 0.70 |
| SYNTAX II CABG | 29.1 ± 10.8 | 29.0 ± 11.1 | 29.1 ± 10.7 | 0.64 | 29.2 ± 9.2 | 29.4 ± 8.9 | 0.89 |
| EuroScore II | 2.9 + 4.3 | 4.1 ± 6.1 | 2.5 ± 4.3 | 0.13 | 3.4 ± 5.2 | 2.7 ± 3.5 | 0.36 |
| Lesion predilatation | 143 (61.6) | 64 (66) | 79 (59) | 0.25 | 40 (57.9) | 38 (55.1) | 0.86 |
| Stent diameter [mm] | 3.2 ± 0.5 | 3.2 ± 0.5 | 3.1 ± 0.5 | 0.91 | 3.1 ± 0.4 | 3.1 ± 0.7 | 1.0 |
| Stent length [mm] | 21.2 ± 10.9 | 25.9 ± 12 | 17.6 ± 6.5 | 0.07 | 22.1 ± 7.8 | 19.2 ± 8.5 | 0.04 |
| Stent pressure [atm] | 15.3 ± 2.7 | 15.7 ± 2.6 | 15.1 ± 2.7 | 0.09 | 15.4 ± 2.5 | 15.8 ± 2.2 | 0.32 |
| 2nd stent implantation | 90 (39) | 43 (44) | 47 (35) | 0.16 | 31 (44.9) | 29 (42.0) | 0.86 |
| Stent postdilatation | 88 (37.9) | 34 (35) | 54 (40) | 0.44 | 25 (36.2) | 27 (39.1) | 0.86 |
| Access site | |||||||
| Transradial | 193 (83.2) | 81 (84) | 112 (83) | 0.91 | 60 (86.9) | 58 (84.1) | 0.81 |
| Transfemoral | 39 (16.8) | 16 (16) | 23 (17) | 9 (13.0) | 11 (15.9) | ||
| Guiding catheter * | |||||||
| 6F | 222 (95.7) | 91 (93.8) | 131 (96.3) | 0.33 | 65 (94.2) | 67 (97.1) | 0.68 |
| 7F | 11 (4.7) | 6 (6.2) | 5 (3.7) | 4 (5.8) | 2 (2.9) | ||
| Intravascular imaging | |||||||
| IVUS | 20 (8.6) | 11 (11.3) | 9 (6.7) | 0.24 | 5 (7.2) | 4 (5.8) | 1.0 |
| OCT | 8 (3.4) | 3 (3.1) | 5 (3.7) | 0.76 | 2 (2.9) | 2 (2.9) | 1.0 |
| Coronary dissection | 16 (6.9) | 6 (6.2) | 10 (7.4) | 0.72 | 4 (5.8) | 5 (7.2) | 1.0 |
| MI type 4a | 5 (2.2) | 2 (2.1) | 3 (2.2) | >0.99 | 2 (2.9) | 2 (2.9) | 1.0 |
* More than one access or catheter was used during the procedure; DM—diabetes; LM—left main; LAD—left anterior descending artery; LCx—left circumflex artery; MI—myocardial infarction; RCA—right coronary artery; VG—vein graft.
Table 4.
Drugs administered at discharge.
| Unmatched Population | Propensity Score-Matched Population | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Total Population n = 232 (%) | DM n = 97 (%) | Non-DM n = 135 (%) | p | DM n = 69 (%) | Non-DM n = 69 (%) | p |
| Acetylsalicylic acid | 232 (100) | 97 (100) | 135 (100) | 1.0 | 69 (100) | 69 (100) | 1.0 |
| P2Y12 | |||||||
| Clopidogrel | 214 (92.2) | 89 (92) | 125 (93) | 0.68 | 64 (92.3) | 64 (92.3) | 1.0 |
| Prasugrel | 1 (0.4) | 1 (1.0) | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Ticagrelor | 17 (7.3) | 7 (7.2) | 10 (7.4) | 5 (7.2) | 5 (7.2) | ||
| Beta-blocker | 223 (96.1) | 96 (99) | 127 (94) | 0.08 | 69 (100) | 67 (97.1) | 0.49 |
| Ca-blocker | 53 (22.8) | 30 (31) | 23 (17) | 0.01 | 16 (23.2) | 13 (18.8) | 0.68 |
| Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor | 190 (81.9) | 78 (80) | 112 (83) | 0.62 | 56 (81.2) | 59 (85.5) | 0.65 |
| Angiotensin receptor blocker | 36 (15.5) | 17 (18) | 19 (14) | 0.47 | 11 (15.9) | 9 (13.0) | 0.81 |
| Diuretic | 125 (53.9) | 65 (67) | 60 (44) | <0.001 | 40 (57.9) | 36 (52.2) | 0.61 |
| Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist | 48 (20.7) | 17 (18) | 31 (23) | 0.31 | 9 (13.0) | 11 (15.9) | 0.81 |
| Nitrates | 13 (5.6) | 10 (10) | 3 (2.2) | 0.01 | 5 (7.2) | 2 (2.9) | 0.44 |
| Vitamin K antagonist | 17 (7.3) | 6 (6.2) | 11 (8.1) | 0.57 | 3 (4.3) | 4 (5.8) | 1.0 |
| Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant | 11 (4.7) | 7 (7.2) | 4 (3.0) | 0.21 | 3 (4.3) | 2 (2.9) | 1.0 |
| Statin | 230 (99.1) | 95 (98) | 135 (100) | 0.17 | 69 (100) | 69 (100) | 1.0 |
| Hypoglycemic medications | 62 (26.7) | 60 (62) | 2 (1.5) | <0.001 | 45 (65.2) | 0 | <0.001 |
| Insulin | 33 (14.2) | 33 (33) | 0 | <0.001 | 23 (33.3) | 0 | <0.001 |
DM—diabetes.
Table 5.
Study endpoints by year in patients with diabetes and without diabetes.
| Year | Death | Cardiac Death | TLR | MI | MACE | Patient Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients with diabetes | ||||||
| 1 | 13 (13.4%) | 10 (10.3%) | 9 (9.3%) | 7 (7.2%) | 17 (17.5%) | 97 |
| 2 | 14 (14.4%) | 11 (11.3%) | 12 (12.4%) | 7 (7.2%) | 21 (21.6%) | 84 |
| 3 | 15 (15.4%) | 12 (12.4%) | 12 (12.4%) | 7 (7.2%) | 22 (22.7%) | 83 |
| 4 | 17 (17.5%) | 12 (12.4%) | 12 (12.4%) | 10 (10.3%) | 25 (25.6%) | 82 |
| Patients without diabetes | ||||||
| 1 | 4 (2.9%) | 1 (0.74%) | 9 (6.7%) | 2 (1.5%) | 10 (7.4%) | 135 |
| 2 | 5 (3.7%) | 2 (1.5%) | 16 (11.9%) | 4 (2.9%) | 18 (13.3%) | 131 |
| 3 | 6 (4.4%) | 3 (2.2%) | 19 (14.1%) | 4 (2.9%) | 22 (16.3%) | 130 |
| 4 | 8 (5.9%) | 4 (2.9%) | 22 (16.3%) | 6 (4.4%) | 29 (21.5%) | 129 |
n (%). MACE—major adverse cardiovascular events; MI—myocardial infarction; TLR—target lesion revascularization.
Table 6.
Study endpoints by year in patients with diabetes and without diabetes (propensity score-matched population).
Table 6.
Study endpoints by year in patients with diabetes and without diabetes (propensity score-matched population).
| Year | Death | Cardiac Death | TLR | MI | MACE | Patient Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients with diabetes | ||||||
| 1 | 9 (13.0%) | 8 (11.6%) | 6 (8.7%) | 4 (5.8%) | 13 (18.8%) | 69 |
| 2 | 10 (14.5%) | 8 (11.6%) | 8 (11.6%) | 5 (7.2%) | 16 (23.2%) | 60 |
| 3 | 11 (15.9%) | 9 (13.0%) | 8 (11.6%) | 7 (10.1%) | 19 (27.5%) | 50 |
| 4 | 13 (18.8%) | 10 (14.5%) | 10 (14.5%) | 8 (11.6%) | 21 (30.4%) | 39 |
| Patients without diabetes | ||||||
| 1 | 2 (2.9%) | 1 (1.4%) | 3 (4.3%) | 1 (1.4%) | 5 (7.2%) | 69 |
| 2 | 3 (4.3%) | 2 (2.9%) | 5 (7.2%) | 2 (2.9%) | 9 (13.0%) | 67 |
| 3 | 3 (4.3%) | 2 (2.9%) | 7 (10.1%) | 3 (4.3%) | 12 (17.4%) | 64 |
| 4 | 4 (5.8%) | 3 (4.3%) | 8 (11.6%) | 4 (5.8%) | 15 (21.7%) | 61 |
Table 7.
Multivariable Cox analysis: major adverse cardiovascular events.
| Variable | Multivariable Analysis for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | p | |
| Postdilatation | 3.76 | 1.56, 9.08 | 0.003 |
| EuroScore > 3.0 | 5.80 | 1.92, 17.5 | 0.002 |
| Arterial hypertension | 0.16 | 0.03, 0.78 | 0.023 |
| Clopidogrel use | 0.28 | 0.09, 0.93 | 0.038 |
HR—hazard ratio; CI—confidence interval.
Table 8.
Multivariable Cox analysis: target lesion revascularization.
| Variable | Multivariable Analysis for Target Lesion Revascularization | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | p | |
| Postdilatation | 14.5 | 2.77, 75.7 | 0.002 |
| EuroScore > 3.0 | 6.72 | 1.43, 31.5 | 0.016 |
| Cardiogenic shock | 42.2 | 2.21, 80.5 | 0.013 |
| Clopidogrel use | 0.15 | 0.03, 0.71 | 0.017 |
HR—hazard ratio; CI—confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Bil, J.; Tyczynski, M.; Kern, A.; Bojko, K.; Gil, R.J. Percutaneous Coronary Interventions with Sirolimus-Eluting Alex Plus Stents in Patients with or without Diabetes: 4-Year Results. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2024, 11, 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11060160
AMA Style
Bil J, Tyczynski M, Kern A, Bojko K, Gil RJ. Percutaneous Coronary Interventions with Sirolimus-Eluting Alex Plus Stents in Patients with or without Diabetes: 4-Year Results. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease. 2024; 11(6):160. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11060160
Chicago/Turabian StyleBil, Jacek, Maciej Tyczynski, Adam Kern, Krystian Bojko, and Robert J. Gil. 2024. "Percutaneous Coronary Interventions with Sirolimus-Eluting Alex Plus Stents in Patients with or without Diabetes: 4-Year Results" Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease 11, no. 6: 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11060160
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
